list_projects

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It only states 'list' implying read-only, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether results are complete. Lacks depth expected from a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff. Purpose and key usage condition are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior minimally. Missing a read-only hint could confuse agents expecting mutations. With no annotations, more detail on safety or limitations would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that the optional 'area' parameter filters projects by area, adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it does not clarify what values the area parameter accepts or how to obtain them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'projects', and specifies returned fields (id, name, status, area). Differentiates from sibling tools like list_areas or list_todos by targeting projects specifically, but does not explicitly contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides conditional usage for the 'area' parameter, but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_todos or search_todos. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.